FUTURES IN DOUBT: The Hornets might be forced to hold on to Chris Paul through the duration of his contract in order to entice a new prospective owner to want to buy the team, Peter Vecsey says. Photo: AP

Based on the acquisition of the Montreal Expos by Major League Baseball there are reasons to suppose the Hornets’ state of affairs could have a happy ending, though not necessarily in New Orleans.

On second thought, it’s highly conceivable the franchise could go away altogether:

Should the city and state be unwilling to kick in some cash, the way they do for the Saints (that definitely appears to be the continuing case; how dare the governor prefer to fund health care, jobs and education!), there probably isn’t enough recreational spending loot to keep the Hornets afloat.

What’s more, there isn’t an available market that makes relocation sense, I’m informed. Seattle would be the clear-cut favorite, says a source, but the Sonics’ old home (Key Arena) still needs a major facelift to meet NBA high-tech design or another space needs to be carved out in a hurry.

Thirdly, the 29 owners who paid George Shinn $300 million and must now subsidize the Hornets at $45-to-50 million in perpetuity figure to be reluctant to do so beyond next season. In fact, logic dictates they’re probably leaning toward ending the funding after this one, depending on how negotiations turn out regarding a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Why advance that much cheddar to a full partner ($33 million) in the league’s national TV contract in addition to another $15 million in revenue sharing? Will its TV partners pay the NBA any less because it doesn’t have a team in New Orleans? Who says the NBA can’t be a 29- (28-, 27-) team league?

Don’t think for a moment profit-making owners aren’t already conspiring to bail on the Hornets and outfitting other failing franchises for dispersal drafts in order to enjoy increased success and enhanced competitiveness. Don’t think for a second those in the flush won’t seriously try to use it as leverage in CBA talks to eliminate 15 jobs at a shot.

When MLB bought the Expos the presumption was it would take six months to find a buyer and a new location. Instead, it took four seasons. During that infertile period commissioner Bud Selig’s policy was strictly hands-off, except to establish a sufficient budget to run a ‘competitive’ operation and appoint caretaker Tony Tarares — about to be installed in the same position for the NHL’s Dallas Stars — who was given full authority regarding trades and whatnot.

Because the Expos transferred to a top 10 city and got a completely free ball field (Nationals Park) as part of the luxuriously leveraged deal when they finally were sold in 2006 to the Lerner family of D.C. and former Hawks president Stan Kasten, MLB recouped top dollar on its investment.

The Hornets’ situation might be akin to the Expos, but there are major differences. Stern is not looking to bail on the city and its citizens, outwardly anyway. Meanwhile, Shinn still was covering significant loses and in no danger of going into bankruptcy — as the MLB’s Texas Rangers and NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes. In the best interest of everyone concerned, Stern felt compelled to step in and hopes to discover a business model that will work in New Orleans.

It was the best alternative of many unappetizing options. From conversations with those in the know, it’s clear this unprecedented venture is temporary, though it could work.

Logically, nobody has more educated inside knowledge than Stern about what’s likely to happen in a stare down with the Players’ Association. The league might not know for sure who will crack on what issues, but it’s certainly in the best position to know.

“Don’t overlook the positive impact of a new CBA,” a former team official stresses. “Lockout or no lockout, if the league gets a good portion of what it demands teams will be worth a great deal more afterward.”

Jac Sperling, a home-grown sports executive, was hired to serve as team chairman/governor and manage the league-imposed budget.

As with the Expos, theoretically this should defuse any impure thoughts about potential conflicts of interest and perceived favoritism. Still, the league has a thick stake in making the Hornets as appealing as possible to prospective buyers. That might mean being forced to hold on to Chris Paul for dear life for the duration of his contract (2011-12), even if the team would improve in the long run by trading him for three rising talents to say, the Knicks. I’m just throwing that out there for some local flavor.

Should Sperling want to deal within the confines of the league’s budget, Stern says it will get done. Not if it destroys the franchise’s assessed worth, I say.

OK, forget Paul, for the moment, let’s pretend the league had owned the Grizzlies when owner Michael Heisley wanted to unload Pau Gasol’s multi-year swollen contract.

What if Stern had intervened and squashed the deal to the Lakers on the grounds it greatly would shrink the value of the franchise, not to mention Memphis’ ability to win?

Just think, Gregg Popovich might have cracked a slight smile.

A more alarming picture, of course, would have been Stern maintaining the league’s hands-off stance. What if his appointed caretaker had been the person to lift the Lakers to The Finals (and ultimately two championships) level?

The outraged shrieks about the NBA’s apparent preferential treatment for its flashiest franchise may have forever impeached Stern’s credibility.

I suspect Stern would be the first to admit the NBA finds itself in an awkward situation.